Prayer Is A Life Lived in Union With God

Of course, a life lived in union with God is a very positive way of practising prayer, but prayer as a ritual for which you take time out of your day to perform is a very beautiful way of practising ones tradition, maintaining its mystery, its mysticism and its sacredness.

I can see God as a God who answers prayer, a God who intervenes in the lives of the faithful. Of course there are some guidelines through which I see this, for instance, God intervenes only when a mysterious experience is interpreted as a religious event, thus keeping the focus not externally but internally. More, God does not intervene from outside the human condition, for me God is not an external force acting of his own free will, God is an interpretation of the internal mystery which develops when humans come into relational contact with other humans. Finally, God is not a Westerner. Calling on God to find a car-park at the mall during Christmas shopping is not only very self-centered, it is a bastardization of Christian prayer. Prayer is prayer of hope, prayer guided by the Holy Spirit, prayer purposed for morals.

It was always the Jewish hope to cry out to a just God in the face of imminent danger, in the face of injustice, in the face of sickness, in the face of death. And in the revelation of Jesus Christ we find that it is the Christian hope to participate with God in bringing about the justice, the compassion, the healing, the miracles, the resurrection, the hope. It's not a question of "Does God answer prayer?" It's a question of "Do we participate with God?" I guess that's where Crossan's dichotomy between ritualistic prayer and the life lived in union with God comes into play, according to the life lived in union with God, we do participate with God... According to the ritualistic prayer, no, probably not. Yet, I wouldn't place that big a dualism in between the two. It is healthy to cry out in hope against injustice, if only to bring awareness to the injustice.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, I'm just musing, I guess.

Allan

God works in mysterious ways. You call this a "cop-out." Since you open your letter with the salutation, "Children," let's use that arena, of parent and child. If God is parent, knowing vastly more than his children, then it makes perfect sense that he would address some of our request as we would like him to, and refuse others. This is how parenting works. The child may not like the answer. To be sure, the answers may not make any sense to the child. Yet, this is how it works. If we have a relationship to God as parent, it is not only reasonable for us to not understand it all, it's a part of being a child.

Children,

Quoting passages and debating this religious literature is no different than a group of trekkies arguing over who is/was the best Enterprise captain.

Every study conducted on prayer, even those conducted by Christian organizations, have concluded that prayer has no impact on the real world whatsoever. Does it make you feel better? Fine, and I'm happy for you. And I was comforted by talking to my imaginary friend, Fluffy, when I was five.

I have a religious acquaintance whose family was in a horrific accident recently. He called on all his friends to pray for his family members' recovery. Fortunately, they are all now well and healthy. But, their current condition is due ONLY to the excellent medical care they received, not to any supernatural intervention. Though, he insisted to me that it was peoples' prayers that saved his family. So, I had to ask, since he is so religious, does he pray every morning? Yes. Does he say a prayer asking his god to protect him and his family? Yes. Does he and others of his faith say a daily prayer asking their god to protect the members of their community? Yes. Did he, and others in his community, say these prayers on the days leading up the accident? Yes. Did they say these prayers on the day of the accident? Yes. So why did their god not listen to those prayers? To which there is only the one possible answer of all persons of faith: god has his/her/its reasons, AKA god works in mysterious ways, etc. This is the greatest cop-out ever devised by man, and it is precisely the reason why those of us who don't share your blind faith and abandonment of reason as ignorant children. Sorry, but it's true. I just wish you would all grow up. Too many of our species are dying every day because you children can't stop fighting over whose invisible friend is the best.

E FAVORITE,

As far as I know, Mr. Meacham's article has only appeared as a "Guest Voice." I can't discern the logic, if there is any, of why some pieces go there and others go to "On Faith."

Emm -- Good - I think we're in accord too, so that settles it!

I'd like to see you over at the new Jon Meacham thread: Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/02/believing_in_things_unseen_is.html#comments

He just posted it on Friday and there are over 100 responses so far, but the only link to it I can find now is in the “Guest Voices” archives.

The moniker of one of the believers there is “Don’t Waste Your Time Reading This, I’m Mentally Unbalanced.” So – speaking for myself – more balanced views would be welcomed.

E Favorite:

Based upon my reading of your many posts, I think you and I are in accord with regard to clarity. I personally try to avoid statements that are not based upon my personal experiences. While I've studied philosophy, theology, world religions and politics for over forty years, I still know far too little to make sweeping conclusions.

EMM – you’re right, that DZ … cannot possibly have met and gained the permission to speak for all those that would inevitably be included in the all inclusive ‘us’.”

In these conversations, I am often pointing out the broad statements that believers make about atheists or about God’s desires, thoughts or feelings. Unless a person is armed with conclusive research or in-depth knowledge on an issue, I think it’s best to avoid such broad statements.

Please note that when I said , “I THINK that his statement “actually applies broadly….” It was stated as a personal opinion. And that is my opinion. I can’t think of an instance in history or in my personal experience that indicates otherwise. I’m open to hearing about them. In fact, I’d actively like to hear about them or anyone’s perceptions of instances when people were not offended by having a religion imposed on them.

So much for semantics. I’m all for clarity. I think it’s generally important and even more important when people with different perspectives are trying to communicate productively.

E Favorite:

EMM, I think "Please do not wish your religion on us. Wishing it on us is the first step toward imposing it on us. This is offensive to us” -- actually applies broadly to believers and non-believers.

Maybe some people these days want to have another's beliefs wished or imposed on them, but I suspect it's pretty rare.

*** My point is that DZ is in no position to use the word “us”, because he cannot possibly have met and gained the permission to speak for all those that would inevitably be included in the all inclusive “us”. Claiming to speak for other people, without their expressed permission is presumptuous at best. Had DZ said ‘"Please do not wish your religion on me. Wishing it on me is the first step toward imposing it on me. This is offensive to me’, he would be speaking for himself. Without clearly defining whom he intended to include in the use of the word “us”, others are only left to imagine for whom DZ claims to speak. And your suggestion that DZ’s statement “actually applies broadly to believers and non-believers.” confirms my point.

EMM, I think "Please do not wish your religion on us. Wishing it on us is the first step toward imposing it on us. This is offensive to us” -- actually applies broadly to believers and non-believers.

Maybe some people these days want to have another's beliefs wished or imposed on them, but I suspect it's pretty rare.

E Favorite:

My question about the meaning of "us" was referenced to the first three sentences of DZ’s February 1, 2007 3:52 PM post:

“Jim- Please do not wish your religion on us. Wishing it on us is the first step toward imposing it on us. This is offensive to us.”

Emm –

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to me that DZ was attempting to "speak for all nonbelievers" but was instead stating a fact – people who do not use certain facilities and services still have to support them with tax dollars. The same would go for public schools – people who don’t have children in public school, or whose children are in private school, still have to pay school taxes. Some don’t mind, others do, but all have to pay.

DZ: “EMM: My use of us meant we unbelievers. With regard to subsidies, churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc. do not pay property taxes, but they do use police and fire protection and a wide range of other services supported primarily by property taxes. 45 million secular Americans who do not use such facilities are forced thereby to subsidize provision of these services for the religious.”

*** I asked the question fully suspecting that you would answer as you have. It may seem a small point but; I’d like to suggest that, however universal you may suppose your position(s), you cannot speak for all nonbelievers, any more than I could claim to speak for all believers. There is great diversity in the opinions and positions of people on both sides of the question.

As to subsidies to churches, mosques, temples and synagogues, I’ll concede you have a point.

Josephus ( b.37 CE/AD – died shortly after 100 AD/CE)[1], who became known, in his capacity as a Roman citizen, as Flavius Josephus[2], was a 1st-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism. And wrote the books translated and featured on-line at : http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

Concerned TCL - I've given that web site a quick glance and something horrible just jumps out and hits me in the face. Josephus is a "modern" writer relative to what he is writing about there. I haven't read much of it yet but

WHERE IS HE GETTING THE INFORMATION?

Is there references somewhere that I didn't find yet? I noticed that he "intends to impress" Greeks that were dashing about European woods naked when Moses crossed the sea of reeds. Greeks, Romans and Josephus are all Johnny come latelys.

He references "hebrew" scriptures which are what? Notice that he mentions "us Jews" but does not refer to the scriptures as Jewish.

Hebrews were women who had something to do with the crown of ancient Egypt and maybe Jews and maybe not. From http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 we learn that the queens rebelling against male domination were "foreigners." Where did they come from? BH says Phillistine for one with a telling "wink" saying nonsense.

Thanks a lot for the URLs. There is obviously a little FICTION writing by Josephus as many scholars now say. Nothing so far changes my mind about the Bible being a proved hoax.

Some further thoughts on how academics might justify not taking that next step -- suggesting that Jesus may be mythical:

- Following a tacit code of conduct, -- the honorable, accepted way for academics to express themselves on this subject

- Remaining objective, not trying to inflict their beliefs on others

- Being respectful of others’ beliefs, assuming/knowing that most readers are believers, at some level

- Perceiving maintaining the status quo as necessary to keep their jobs and/or stay a member of the club

- Behaving otherwise would require an unraveling of all the complicated rationales they’ve used to maintain their stance or their beliefs

It's all conjecture, of course, but I hope you’re reading, Dr Crossan, and think this is worthy enough for you and your colleagues to ponder further -- and publicly.

As Peter Jennings said after a TV documentary on Jesus, "Something truely amazing happened 2000 years ago in Palestine". The exact specifics are missing but John the Baptist, Paul, the Apostles and the authors of the many Gospels and epistles were supremely impressed. Unfortunately the impression led to signficant embellishments of the story with economics involved to some degree. Professor Crossan, the Jesus Seminar and other contemporary NT exegetes have done an admiral job in removing the "chaff from the wheat". Professor Crossans "chaff vs wheat" conclusions are posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf.

A list of many of the books written about the historic Jesus in the last 20 years is posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

EMM

Your posts have always been civilized and you speak for yourself quite clearly.

Ba'al states:

"I am more concerned with people who are rigid followers of texts of very dubious provenance."

True, we all should not be devoid of flexibility...but I also believe one can only be flexible to a point, with regard to aspects of our lives and living side by side on our planet earth. Consider, is a person rigid if they stop fully at a stop sign? Or is it ok, yea lawful, to come to a slow roll and then speed on if no one else is in the intersection? As trivial as this might seem, it has direct correlation to how biblical law operates: The letter and the spirit. In letter, law states that you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign. In spirit, you do so, not only in respect to the law and the law giver, but also to your fellow man (so, hopefully, for instance, one wont be distracted by a cell phone and run down another vehicle or, most importantly, a pedestrian). This is why, as Christ said, the law of God has not been done away. It is still applicable, only enhanced now by the spirit of the law.

Rigidity, or strict adherence, to the 10 commandments would eliminate most of the woes in this world. Man is a free moral agent. He has choices. God is a Father not totally unlike us. A loving human parent ideally should not cram things down their childs throat. He is doing the same for mankind right now. The guidelines are there. It is really up to us.

Sadly, the fact is that societies that have forsaken proven guidelines to truly abundant living have always failed. Perhaps they too considered them to be of doubful origin. I dont believe there are many among us that can deny how relevant the commandments of God really are for our benefit and well being- for the whole family of man. It is only our inability to fully embrace them that is the core of the miseries we create for ourselves.

Ba'al:

“I invite you to go back and look at some of the panelist's remarks about atheists -- for example Professor Arroyo-Stevens and Cal Thomas -- and you will see that it is fair game in this country to say things about atheists that one can no longer say about other groups. If you're still not convinced, you can have a look at Ann Coulter's "Godless" if you have the stomach for it.”

*** First, I would invite you to read my response to Cal Thomas, which I repost below:

Cal Thomas:

I sense in your comments why it is that so many atheists respond the way they do. Frankly, as a Christian, I find your comments shallow, judgmental and unchristian.

You say: “I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That’s because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.”

***Really? Your claim is that unless one believes in God, they have no basis upon which to reverence life and creation. This is astounding to me. It shows a disturbingly uncharitable and judgmental chauvinism.

You say: “It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe “happened” without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.”

****Once again I find your comments condescending and judgmental, not to mention intellectually lazy, the same claim you make against atheists. You may find more comfort in believing in a Designer than not, but this decision of yours (and mine), is one of faith, not rigorous logic. The arguments for a Designer are the same as those for a first cause and such arguments are at best intellectually lazy. If God requires no cause, neither does the universe. It’s that easy to dismiss the first cause argument. Is your position: God can exist by chance but not the universe? Surely your belief rests upon something more substantial than that?

****As regards the wager, you have it only half right. It might just be that you and I, as believers, have it all wrong and have spent our lifetimes worshiping an idol. The risk in belief and unbelief is equally weighty.

You say: “I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships – including with atheists – and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.”

****As Christians, I believe we are called to a far higher standard than your comments would indicate you're comfortable with. Condescending, judgmental and arrogant claims to the supremacy of ones faith or worldview seem sorely lacking in the love and charity that Jesus called us to display, even toward our enemies.

I can assure you Mr. Thomas that you do not speak for me.

**** Secondly, as regards “Ann Coulter's "Godless", I have read as much as a rational person can stomach and found it insulting to me as a thinking Christian. I can assure you Ms. Coulter does not speak for me either.

EMM: My use of us meant we unbelievers. With regard to subsidies, churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc. do not pay property taxes, but they do use police and fire protection and a wide range of other services supported primarily by property taxes. 45 million secular Americans who do not use such facilities are forced thereby to subsidize provision of these services for the relgious.

Ba’al –

I’m puzzled too, at how Crossan (and others) “can look at his data and not take them one step further.” However, now that I’ve heard more clergy and biblical scholars discuss their views, I think it’s much more complex than clinging to a childhood indoctrination. I don’t have the words for it yet, but am working on it. Perhaps there’s an implicit understanding or maybe even an unconscious decision not to venture over that line. Perhaps it’s not a line, but a brick wall or a precipice.

To my knowledge, Professor Bert Ehrman, author of “Misquoting Jesus” goes the furthest in the introduction to that book when he describes how learning more and more about the Bible caused his “personal theology” to “change radically.” In articles and interviews, (but not in his books, as far as I’ve seen) he describes himself as a “happy agnostic.” I’m hoping his next book will focus on that.

He’s speaking at the National Cathedral, this Tuesday Feb 6th at 7:30. http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/register/ehrman2007sp.shtml

EMM,

Let me also rush to say that a more generalized belief in God is not necessarily irrational, at least the way you describe it. I am more concerned with people who are rigid followers of texts of very dubious provenance.

Many people would be more convinced if Professor Crossan or anyone else could find an authentic independent, more or less contemporary textual attestation to Jesus. There is a sentence in Josephus universally believed to be appended much later. There is a line in Tacitus that indicates the existence of followers of "Christus", which he thought was a proper name. (In any case, the existence of followers is not in doubt). Other than that there are crickets. Jesus might as well be King Arthur. Or Moses. But people are willing to die over these stories.

EMM

Actually the contention is not that people are too cowardly to do see the truth. Rather, the idea is that that they are unable to do it at all, as if the idea is placed into a fairly protected area of their brain because of the source of the idea (parents and other authoritative adults, such as clergy) and the age at which it was presented. It has some things in common with the process of language acquisition.

This is one way to explain how it is smart people can look at e.g. all of the "son of God, died, came back to life after three days" motifs that pervade stories from the ancient near east and the Hellenistic world -- and then conclude that the New Testament is the "sacred Word of God". It most certainly explains the extreme examples of this phenomenon, people like new earth creationists, whose position is completely irrational.

I am sorry you feel insulted, but this theory is NOT an attempt demean people's intelligence, quite the opposite. Having said that, I invite you to go back and look at some of the panelist's remarks about atheists -- for example Professor Arroyo-Stevens and Cal Thomas -- and you will see that it is fair game in this country to say things about atheists that one can no longer say about other groups. If you're still not convinced, you can have a look at Ann Coulter's "Godless" if you have the stomach for it.

Ba'al:
“Admittedly, my reason for speculating about Crossan's motivations is that it provided a way to advance the idea that a great deal of religion persists as a result of childhood indoctrination -- not a particularly original idea, but one that needs to be discussed. I am still puzzled at to how he can look at his data and not take them one step further. “

*** I sense an underlying assumption in your comments that Dr. Crossan and/or other believers somehow lack either the courage or intellectual honesty to shake off their “childhood indoctrination”. Frankly, I find such positions a bit insulting. The rather widely held belief by atheists (if the contributors to this form are representative) that believers are either cowardly or not too smart is an attack not a sustentative argument.

There are, no doubt, many ill-informed and intellectually dishonest proponents of personal belief systems. And it has been my experience that this is as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for believers. Personally I find no merit to the notions that belief in God is either irrational or unreasonable. While there may be many irrational, unreasonable and intolerant believers, people on all sides of these issues seem prone to an “irrational exuberance” for their respective positions. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that all exchanges on this forum remain personally and intellectually honest as well as respectful of our rather diverse beliefs.

Oops,

The site address for Josephus's list of books to include complete English translations is:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

See also Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

A list of Professor Crossan's references that he used for his book The Historical Jesus is posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

A list of Early Christian writings with dates and description is posted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English are also on-line. He notes the existence of Jesus but gives few details. Professor Crossan discusses this in his book.

EMM

Admittedly, my reason for speculating about Crossan's motivations is that it provided a way to advance the idea that a great deal of religion persists as a result of childhood indoctrination -- not a particularly original idea, but one that needs to be discussed. I am still puzzled at to how he can look at his data and not take them one step further.

TO JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN,

What you call Primary Prayer I would call Nirvana. What you call Secondary Prayer is what most people talk about when they describe western prayer.

I like the first. I usually don't like the 2nd. But the way you describe the 2nd - "...taking specific hopes and fears under the shadow of that divine love to let them be shaped by it, sheltered within in, and accepted through it...", I agree with. It's like looking at things thru a different lens.

Mary,
He might be guilty of an odd choice of words but he does have faith. The primary prayer as he puts it is in living life in harmony with God to the best of his ability. The secondary prayer is what most people would consider prayer. So when you approach it from that angle it makes more sense.

Well-EMM, there's evidently DZ and me. Together we make an us.

Jim - I know how hard it will be for you to believe this but my dog just loves me to death almost. She never threatens me with hell either and stands ready to defend me from all my enemies. When I pray to her my prayers are immediately answered. She never shoves a plate under my nose and demand that I put my hard earned money on it. This is just a few benefits one gets from a dog. Now what's Jesus done for you that can compare to what my dog does for me?

DZ said:“Jim- Please do not wish your religion on us. Wishing it on us is the first step toward imposing it on us. This is offensive to us. You are free to believe as you wish, and you are not forced to subsidize my beliefs. I am, on the other hand, forced to subsidize yours. Do you not believe in religious freedom?”

I'm curious:

Who is the “us” of whom you speak? And in what ways are you forced to subsidize Jim's beliefs?

Ba'al:

“Moreover, once an author's views are out there they are open to comment and critique. In that spirit, I presented my own opinion of where his data lead, and my speculation as to why Crossan does not end up at the same place. Also legitimate, even if it makes you cringe.”

***I can assure you that your comments do not make me cringe. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation and critique of Crossan’s work. No problem at all. As to speculating on why Crossan does not end up in the same place as you, that seems to me both entirely subjective and pointless.

As to appeals to authority, I have no idea where you are going with this. I made no appeal to Crossan or any other authority. Is there some attempt to suppress Cross’s views? If so, I’m unaware of it.

Lastly, you suggest that “what most people think they know about Jesus is probably wrong or uncertain.” On this we are in agreement.

Jim- Please do not wish your religion on us. Wishing it on us is the first step toward imposing it on us. This is offensive to us. You are free to believe as you wish, and you are not forced to subsidize my beliefs. I am, on the other hand, forced to subsidize yours. Do you not believe in religious freedom?

There is endless empirical evidence of Julius Caesar, for example. We have his books as well. There is very little empirical evidence for Jesus (Christ is your religious thing not his name) except for Flavius' History of the Romans (0079), and that history does not demonstrate any of the Christian story. The Bible, BTW, is not 'evidence' of anything.

My problem with these books on details on the life of Jesus, is that authors write so much with so little to go on. It makes it seem like scholars know a lot about Jesus, and they simply don't.

On another thread, I mentioned a book I saw titled "Jesus and the dead sea scrolls." Jesus is not mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls.

Posted on February 1, 2007 14:17

BGone said:
Who is Jesus?

He is the Christ.He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Who is caesar?
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for caesar.

BGONE...you need to find the Love of Christ.

Who is Jesus? Who is Shapespear? Who is anyone that is fictional? But of course, fictional people are the figments of the imagination of the fiction writer. So professor does a bit of fiction writing about Jesus. He's not the first.

Some say Shakespear was really a comittee of people and not a single person. They site strong evidence is support of their argument. If they are correct then Hamlet is the best fictional one of "them" however good or bad Hamlet is seen by the reader, the best the group could do.

There were over 850 original books from which 72 were selected to create the Bible. Where did they come from and what are they? But of course, they are the imaginations of 850 different people and perhaps 850 different comittees. What did they set out to do anyhow?

Jesus is the best person the comittee(s) could imagine. From one author to the next Jesus was improved but only as much as the author could improve given all the authors that had come before him. As usual, some didn't think that was a good idea, a perfect person and totally rejected Jesus while others said it was a good idea but that it went too far, son of God no less.

So the argument goes on with a twist, faith. It's alright to faith whatever one feels in one's heart is correct but no faith shall not be allowed to be labled faith. They haven't discovered the digit zero yet. Will they ever?

I don't have a problem with faith dominating no faith and even praying to the fictional person, as close to perfect as the next author, Dr Crossan being one in a very long string of authors can perfect the perfect person. Why do I have to pay for it? Can't they "eat their bread by the sweat of their brows" like me? Did God exempt them from that. Somebody exempted them from taxes but not the zero case, no faith.

Maybe we should try praying,,,for tax relief? Constantine, their hero cut taxes and initiated universal tithing just like it is today in the USA. Everyone pays faith's property taxes and faith can collect God's gifts tax free and tax deductible to the gifters. The no faith group can pay just a little more, government imposed tithes to take up the slack. Somebody's prayers got answered by the government of the United States of America, one nation "under God." Small wonder they pray and recomend it.

EMM and Concerned TC,

I never suggested, and never would suggest, that Professor Crossan should not speak for himself. In fact he does, quite clearly, on this forum and in his books and elsewhere. I enjoy his books very sincerely even though I increasingly get the impression it is leading nowhere -- because the entire approach is akin to unearthing the historical King Arthur.

Moreover, once an author's views are out there they are open to comment and critique. In that spirit, I presented my own opinion of where his data lead, and my speculation as to why Crossan does not end up at the same place. Also legitimate, even if it makes you cringe.

EMM, appeals to authority, even authorities like Crossan, are never persuasive. Are you saying one should not be allowed to comment on his positions? Also, it would never be an atheist academician such as myself who would argue that Crossan's views should be in some way suppressed. I rather think instead that such an argument is most likely to come from the direction of the Church hierarchy or other Christians offended by his views.

Concerned TC, my reading of Crossan's books is that they reveal that we know much less than most people think we do, and what most people think they know about Jesus is probably wrong or uncertain. Like I say, King Arthur redux,

Ba'al,

Not all of Professor Crossan's books have Jesus as a "figure shrouded in an impenetrable cultural and textual fog". His books with a co-author typically remove the fog especially his book (with Richard Watts) "Who Is Jesus?".

Mary Cunningham,

Check the biographies of the panelists. They range from atheists to cardinals to female rabbis to professors of the Islamic Faith to ex-Presidents etc.

Ba'al:

I too have read many of professor Crossan’s books. And I find it a bit strange that you or anyone would suggest that Dr. Crossan should have by now, or at any time in the future for that matter, come around to your or some other wiser and/or more enlightened belief system or point of view. I tend to think in matters of personal belief, we ought to let other people, especially people as capable as Dr. Crossan, speak for themselves.

Mary Cunningham

I always find Professor Crossan to be interesting, I have read most of his books. I admire his tenacity and seeking spirit, and he writes well. However, he is a case study in the unbelievable power of childhood upbringing (indoctrination). No matter where his monumental scholarly efforts lead, including the very interesting cross-cultural studies, he is unable to allow himself to draw the inevitable conclusion. Among these is that Jesus is a figure shrouded in an impenetrable cultural and textual fog. But he keeps trying.

Mary Cunningham says: “When I read Mr Crossan--I admit intermittently--I wonder: why is he included in "On Faith" when he obviously doesn't have a religious one?”

This seems a rather sweeping judgment. Personally, I find in Dr. Crossan a kindred spirit. Where it comes to something as personal and consequential as ones prayer life, I tend to allow a great deal of latitude. And I’d grant Dr. Crossan the same deference I would allow you, me or anyone else.

Perhaps you would like to share your own approach to prayer?

When I read Mr Crossan--I admit intermittently--I wonder: why is he included in "On Faith" when he obviously doesn't have a religious one?

He doesn't have a strong atheist 'faith' that there is nothing there.

Nor does he seem to have the intellectual courage to admit: "I don't know": no agnostic, he!

Instead he waffles around constructing yet new categories (primary and secondary praying, anyone?) supposedly pertaining to some facet of religion but actually meaningless; he interperses this with a few O & N Testament quotes to show that he has some knowledge about these 'new' categories. OK, granted he has some knowledge but he has no commitment. To anything. I could do a template for one of his articles & do one very well, they are that devoid of any real content. Well, I guess Prof Crossan has to earn a living.

Some living.

For me prayer comes in different forms.

More traditional prayers of petition are no longer something I do with the expectation that I’ll get a direct answer or intervention. Rather, over the years I have come to see prayer primarily as an ongoing relationship or conversation with God. This almost continual dialogue has become my primary way to enter into and rest in God’s presence and/or what I sometimes describe as the “mystery of life”. It is more a disposition that keeps me in relationship to God than it is anticipation or expectation that God is going to intervene to provide a solution to the travails of life.

Another important kind of prayer for me is contemplation. This is a quiet conscious emptying of my mind, with the hope and desire that my inner silence will open my heart and mind to the presence of God.

I also find that study too is an important means of communing with God. Especially when reading the Bible or studying world religions, theology, philosophy and psychology, I feel a connection to the divine presence. For me this starts with a conscious disposition to open myself to the truth, to open my mind and heart to both knowledge and inspiration.

Other forms of prayer that have increasing importance for me are prayers of praise and/or blessing. I am increasingly drawn to offer praise to God. And I am also drawn to saying silent prayers of blessing for myself, those closest to me and frequently to strangers. These various ways of being in relationship to God are all manifestations of my desire to enter into, and as much as possible, to remain in constant communion with God.

ALM,

Amen!! :)

Hi Concerned,

Thanks for the useful links. I guess we will really never know, will we? If this was part of the early (60-80 AD) tradition, it seems reasonable to assume that the early followers of Jesus sensed it was of great benefit to maintain the practice of drawing alone and praying at intervals and envisioned the Master as having done so. Perhaps only inwardly.

ALM,

As per Professor Crossan's analysis, Mark 1:35 was not said/done by the historical Jesus :
218±. To Other Places: (1a) Mark 1:35-39 = Matt 4:23 = Luke 4:42-44, (1b) John 2:12;

Neither was
(1) Mark 9:14-29 = Matt 17:14-21 = Luke 9:37-43a

Both were later additions/embellishments as per the Professor.

See his book The Historical Jesus and some additional details at
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb218.html and
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb245.html

Hi Prof. Crossan,

I love the Gospel of Mark so I was surprised to read from you that this earliest Gospel did not support the picture I had of Jesus withdrawing from his public ministry to set aside time to be alone with the Father. So I pulled out my concordance and was relieved to find the following:

Mk 1:35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose and went out to a lonely place and there he prayed. (RSV)

Also this:

(After commanding a demon to come out of a boy)

Mk 9:29 And he said to [the disciples]this kind cannot be driven ot by anything but prayer. (RSV)

I agree that Jesus dwelt in a state of union with the Divine, but even he practiced solitary prayer as shown in Mark.

Professor Crossan,

Excellent commentary but a bit overboard with the OT and NT.

IMHO, God started the Big Bang. He/She also granted the gifts of Free Will and Future to all the thinking beings in the Universe. This being the case, God is not able to alter life and requests/prayers will not be answered. Statistically, your request might come true but it is simply the result of the variabiliy/randomness of Nature.

So put down your rosaries and prayer beads and stop worshiping cows and bowing to Mecca six times a day. Instead work hard at your job, take care of aging parents, volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to charities and the poor and continue to follow the Commandments of your religion or any good rules of living as gracious and good human beings. And lets all hope there indeed is a place called Heaven!!!